Sexually selected traits are necessarily historically contingent, but you can’t just explain away any hereditary handicap as a product of sexual selection: the theory makes the nontrivial prediction that mate selection will depend on such traits.
Hmm. Generalization: a theory that concentrates probability mass in a high-dimensional space might not do so in a lower-dimensional projection. This seems important, but maybe only because I find false claims of nonfalsifiability/lack of predictive power very annoying.
I’m having trouble seeing the relation between your comment and mine, but I’m intrigued and wish to subscribe to your newsletter would like to see it spelled out a bit.
Hmm. Generalization: a theory that concentrates probability mass in a high-dimensional space might not do so in a lower-dimensional projection. This seems important, but maybe only because I find false claims of nonfalsifiability/lack of predictive power very annoying.
I’m having trouble seeing the relation between your comment and mine, but I’m intrigued and
wish to subscribe to your newsletterwould like to see it spelled out a bit.